On 09/23/2015 03:18 PM, Chad Joan wrote:
This is why I argued for alternative mixin syntax in D some ... years?
... ago.
It'd be really cool to have a writefln overload that did this:
int somevar = 42;
writefln#("This is ${somevar}");
writefln#("Plus two and you get ${somevar+1}");
Which would just be shorthand for
int somevar = 42;
mixin writefln!("This is ${somevar}");
mixin writefln!("Plus two and you get ${somevar+2}");
I feel like a bit of syntax sugar could go a long way ;)
Yea, the trouble with string mixins is that they're ugly enough people
don't like to use them.
I'd argued in the past for a way to tag a CTFE-able string-returning
function as being intended for mixing-in, so you could omit the
"mixin(...)" part. But we only ever got it for template mixins. Allowing
it for string mixins was too controversial. :(
I dunno, maybe even a string mixin sugar as simple as this would be a
big help:
mixin!func(args to func here)
ie:
mixin!interp("Some string here")
But I'm guessing the ship's ling since sailed for anything like that.
